MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Arthur Jones and Boyer Coe video.
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

tensionstrength

This thread was inspired after reading Jessie Lee Otis's and Bastion's comments on Michael Petrella's "STG stage 5 gym" thread. The comments were regarding an old video of Arthur Jones training Boyer Coe. I thought Jessie and Bastion both made valid, good potential discussion making comments. Made me think back to the stuff I've read of Arthur's, discussing training and of others' writing about his training. Maybe Dr. Darden and some of you others that new Arthur would care to comment more on the video or refresh my memory of whether Arthur advcoated the ultra intensity we are nit seeing in the video or this was other people saying Arthur advocated ultra intensity?? Or did this change over time??
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

To be clear, this post is not intended to be written from a negative perspective. I have had an interest in this stuff (HIT) since about 1991? 92? This is out of sheer interest. To contradict some of what I wrote initially, could one say that Boyer is getting at the higher intensity part of the sets much quicker or possibly out the gate?
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Arthur Jones quickly lost interest in training Boyer Coe. He talked about some of the reasons in his autobiography. Plus, we discussed the training of Coe and the Mentzers extensively some 15 years ago in the Discussion Forum.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Thanks Dr. Darden. Yes I understand. Some of this stuff has probably been brought again and again and again. Thank you and everybody else here for the knowledge and ideas since I've visited here.
Open User Options Menu

Jesse Lee Otis

tensionstrength -- Thank you for creating this thread; I should not have detracted from Petrella's Stage 5 thread as I did.

Jesse Lee




Open User Options Menu

Jesse Lee Otis

Ellington Darden wrote:
Arthur Jones quickly lost interest in training Boyer Coe. He talked about some of the reasons in his autobiography. Plus, we discussed the training of Coe and the Mentzers extensively some 15 years ago in the Discussion Forum.
Ellington

====================================

Thank you for your input, doc. We members of this forum have a 'gold mine' in your vast experience and active participation in the forum; those two things give us factual insight into the 'iron game' for many years back. It is exciting to read your posts where you talk about things that you were actually involved in and know about.

Jesse Lee


Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Jesse Lee Otis wrote:
tensionstrength -- Thank you for creating this thread; I should not have detracted from Petrella's Stage 5 thread as I did.

Jesse Lee






Thank YOU Sir!
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Some of this stuff has probably been brought again and again and again.

==Scott==
That is the understatement of the week, ha ha, but then again talk about the old days is some of the most interesting stuff on here.I figure if you're on here it's because of the old days of Jones, Coe, Viator and the like, not what's going on now.If you want to hear about whats going on now you go to some Testosterone laden Flex meathead freak site.
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

entsminger wrote:
Some of this stuff has probably been brought again and again and again.

==Scott==
That is the understatement of the week, ha ha, but then again talk about the old days is some of the most interesting stuff on here.I figure if you're on here it's because of the old days of Jones, Coe, Viator and the like, not what's going on now.If you want to hear about whats going on now you go to some Testosterone laden Flex meathead freak site.


I hear ya Scott lol. All those guys you mentioned motivate me! I get motivated reading this stuff. Some times somebody gives me something new to think about and possibly apply. I really enjoyed the videos you had made quite some time ago and had linked here. One of my coworkers and I talk about training from time to time. This is fun stuff to me.
Open User Options Menu

Jesse Lee Otis

Dr. Darden --

Are you comfortable with mentioning just why Arthur lost interest in training Coe? I am interested.

I know that consistent with your professional demeanor you might not be - so in that case maybe point me in the direction of an article somewhere that elaborates on it.

Thanks in advance.


Jesse Lee
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Jesse,

Arthur had a love/hate relationship with bodybuilding and bodybuilders. It seemed to be getting worse for him toward the end of Coe's time at Nautilus.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
Jesse,

Arthur had a love/hate relationship with bodybuilding and bodybuilders. It seemed to be getting worse for him toward the end of Coe's time at Nautilus.

Ellington


==Scott==
It is interesting how so many big time bodybuilders like Arnold, Sergio , Boyer and others seemingly didn't want to do things the Jones way and after being under his thumb for a brief time would quickly revert to the ways they had always trained.I heard even Casey really didn't want to train the Jones way and later went back to more conventional methods.It would be easy to say they were just stupid and didn't understand how great Jones system was but then you have to think that these guys didn't get so big being stupid? They would know what would work and what wouldn't.
Open User Options Menu

Jesse Lee Otis

Ellington Darden wrote:
Jesse,

Arthur had a love/hate relationship with bodybuilding and bodybuilders. It seemed to be getting worse for him toward the end of Coe's time at Nautilus.

Ellington


===============================

Thanks for the reply. I guess that Arthur became quite disenchanted with that whole field after years of 'battling' people involved in it. Those who refused to listen to his advice, that attacked him for whatever reason(s), that disrespected the wonderful machines & ideas that he brought forth, etc. He probably grew very weary of all of that - and I can understand it.

Of course, the above is just my idea about the situation.


Jesse Lee

Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

entsminger wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Jesse,

Arthur had a love/hate relationship with bodybuilding and bodybuilders. It seemed to be getting worse for him toward the end of Coe's time at Nautilus.

Ellington

==Scott==
It is interesting how so many big time bodybuilders like Arnold, Sergio , Boyer and others seemingly didn't want to do things the Jones way and after being under his thumb for a brief time would quickly revert to the ways they had always trained.I heard even Casey really didn't want to train the Jones way and later went back to more conventional methods.It would be easy to say they were just stupid and didn't understand how great Jones system was but then you have to think that these guys didn't get so big being stupid? They would know what would work and what wouldn't.


Scott I believe these guys got big due to genetics and the way their bodies responded fantastically to PED's. I think any training method would have produced better results for them than the other 99.9% of the population. The thing Jones method would have done is give them lots more free time and possibly have gotten them there quicker.
While we can all get better, our genetics are our genetics. No amount of self discipline, sacrifice, nutrition or hard training will allow us to go beyond that. PED's and our response to them will allow us to. A guy I worked out with in college never seemed to get beyond a certain point. I saw him years later and he was cut from stone and big as a house. I thought he figured out some new training protocol. After badgering him for awhile he admitted he was using Dianabol and doing basically the same workout we did in college. Some people respond better to PEDs than others.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

epdavis7 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Jesse,

Arthur had a love/hate relationship with bodybuilding and bodybuilders. It seemed to be getting worse for him toward the end of Coe's time at Nautilus.

Ellington

==Scott==
It is interesting how so many big time bodybuilders like Arnold, Sergio , Boyer and others seemingly didn't want to do things the Jones way and after being under his thumb for a brief time would quickly revert to the ways they had always trained.I heard even Casey really didn't want to train the Jones way and later went back to more conventional methods.It would be easy to say they were just stupid and didn't understand how great Jones system was but then you have to think that these guys didn't get so big being stupid? They would know what would work and what wouldn't.

Scott I believe these guys got big due to genetics and the way their bodies responded fantastically to PED's. I think any training method would have produced better results for them than the other 99.9% of the population. The thing Jones method would have done is give them lots more free time and possibly have gotten them there quicker.
While we can all get better, our genetics are our genetics. No amount of self discipline, sacrifice, nutrition or hard training will allow us to go beyond that. PED's and our response to them will allow us to. A guy I worked out with in college never seemed to get beyond a certain point. I saw him years later and he was cut from stone and big as a house. I thought he figured out some new training protocol. After badgering him for awhile he admitted he was using Dianabol and doing basically the same workout we did in college. Some people respond better to PEDs than others.


==Scott==

There's no question those big guys got that way because of genetics and better response to steroids but my point is if they thought Jones way would have been quicker and given them more free time to do other things you would think logically they would have adopted Jones way but they didn't.I think Jones hype about Nautilus wasn't all it was cracked up to be.Only a hand full of serious bodybuilders train as Jones would have them train.That should tell you something.As good as the pullover is it is not the upper body squat. It did not turn out bodybuilders with lats like bat wings.It's just another useful tool in the exercise arsenal.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

entsminger wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Jesse,

Arthur had a love/hate relationship with bodybuilding and bodybuilders. It seemed to be getting worse for him toward the end of Coe's time at Nautilus.

Ellington

==Scott==
It is interesting how so many big time bodybuilders like Arnold, Sergio , Boyer and others seemingly didn't want to do things the Jones way and after being under his thumb for a brief time would quickly revert to the ways they had always trained.I heard even Casey really didn't want to train the Jones way and later went back to more conventional methods.It would be easy to say they were just stupid and didn't understand how great Jones system was but then you have to think that these guys didn't get so big being stupid? They would know what would work and what wouldn't.

Scott I believe these guys got big due to genetics and the way their bodies responded fantastically to PED's. I think any training method would have produced better results for them than the other 99.9% of the population. The thing Jones method would have done is give them lots more free time and possibly have gotten them there quicker.
While we can all get better, our genetics are our genetics. No amount of self discipline, sacrifice, nutrition or hard training will allow us to go beyond that. PED's and our response to them will allow us to. A guy I worked out with in college never seemed to get beyond a certain point. I saw him years later and he was cut from stone and big as a house. I thought he figured out some new training protocol. After badgering him for awhile he admitted he was using Dianabol and doing basically the same workout we did in college. Some people respond better to PEDs than others.

==Scott==

There's no question those big guys got that way because of genetics and better response to steroids but my point is if they thought Jones way would have been quicker and given them more free time to do other things you would think logically they would have adopted Jones way but they didn't.I think Jones hype about Nautilus wasn't all it was cracked up to be.Only a hand full of serious bodybuilders train as Jones would have them train.That should tell you something.As good as the pullover is it is not the upper body squat. It did not turn out bodybuilders with lats like bat wings.It's just another useful tool in the exercise arsenal.


you have to remember also that those bodybuilders and others that are not professionals just love to train in the gym 5,6 or even 7 days a week..i used to be that way in my 20s and 30s, I just loved to be in the gym clanging and banging those weights away along with the social aspect of it too....it wasn't until my 40s that I wanted to spend less time in the gym and find other hobbies and therefore found HIT
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

you have to remember also that those bodybuilders and others that are not professionals just love to train in the gym 5,6 or even 7 days a week..i used to be that way in my 20s and 30s, I just loved to be in the gym clanging and banging those weights away along with the social aspect of it too....it wasn't until my 40s that I wanted to spend less time in the gym and find other hobbies and therefore found HIT

==Scott==
True, Many just loved to stay in the gym for hours but I also think the one set Jones way would not give them the results they wanted.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7


it wasn't until my 40s that I wanted to spend less time in the gym and find other hobbies and therefore found HIT


No doubt. I have too many varied interests and hobbies and responsibilites to want to spend all my free time in the gym. In my teens and twenties it was a big part of my social life. I got to hang out with my buds and ogle women lol. Now all my friends who worked out with me quit and got beer guts and sit around, watch sports and eat chips, chicken wings and swill beer. I'm also happily married. With my job, my family and all my various interests HIT works best for me. I'm not a professional. I don't get paid to work out. I want to get the most bang for my buck for time invested. It may or may not be optimal, but its the path I've chosen.
Open User Options Menu

Jesse Lee Otis

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
True, Many just loved to stay in the gym for hours but I also think the one set Jones way would not give them the results they wanted.

=====================================
Wow. The second part of your sentence is loaded with implications about Jones' method. Further, many many bodybuilders found it very difficult to believe/accept that ONE SET is sufficient to be the whole 'ball of wax' for a given exercise - and I had/have the same reservations (likely borne from early training using multiple sets and difficulty undoing that mindset).


Jesse Lee



Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Jesse Lee Otis wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
True, Many just loved to stay in the gym for hours but I also think the one set Jones way would not give them the results they wanted.
=====================================
Wow. The second part of your sentence is loaded with implications about Jones' method. Further, many many bodybuilders found it very difficult to believe/accept that ONE SET is sufficient to be the whole 'ball of wax' for a given exercise - and I had/have the same reservations (likely borne from early training using multiple sets and difficulty undoing that mindset).


Jesse Lee





== Scott==
I think one set to failure does work to some extent only I don?t think it gives serious bodybuilders what they need. I think they get more size gains from multiple sets and not always to failure. One set to failure once or twice a week works great for the average guy wanting to get stronger and look better with minimal time in the gym but it?s quite obvious serious bodybuilding contenders prefer more volume and most don?t use Nautilus.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

entsminger wrote:

== Scott==
I think one set to failure does work to some extent only I don?t think it gives serious bodybuilders what they need. I think they get more size gains from multiple sets and not always to failure. One set to failure once or twice a week works great for the average guy wanting to get stronger and look better with minimal time in the gym but it?s quite obvious serious bodybuilding contenders prefer more volume and most don?t use Nautilus.


Agreed.
Open User Options Menu

Jesse Lee Otis

entsminger wrote:

== Scott==
I think one set to failure does work to some extent only I don?t think it gives serious bodybuilders what they need. I think they get more size gains from multiple sets and not always to failure. One set to failure once or twice a week works great for the average guy wanting to get stronger and look better with minimal time in the gym but it?s quite obvious serious bodybuilding contenders prefer more volume and most don?t use Nautilus.


=================================

I remember reading where Jones did 'give' a little on the 'only one set' mantra. He may have stated it in either Bulletin 1 or 2 (and repeated it in later writings) that two sets are 'okay to do' (single quotes mine) and even three - but absolutely no more than three sets for any given exercise.

If you - or anyone else - would like to know the exact source of those statements I will be happy to research where I found the statements and let you know.


Jesse Lee
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Jesse Lee Otis wrote:
entsminger wrote:

== Scott==
I think one set to failure does work to some extent only I don?t think it gives serious bodybuilders what they need. I think they get more size gains from multiple sets and not always to failure. One set to failure once or twice a week works great for the average guy wanting to get stronger and look better with minimal time in the gym but it?s quite obvious serious bodybuilding contenders prefer more volume and most don?t use Nautilus.

=================================

I remember reading where Jones did 'give' a little on the 'only one set' mantra. He may have stated in either Bulletin 1 or 2 (and repeated in later writings) that two sets are 'okay to do' (single quotes mine) and even three - but absolutely no more than three sets for any given exercise.

If you - or anyone else - would like to know the exact source of those statements I will research where I found the statements and let you know.


Jesse Lee


I seem to recall something similar as well, although in his mid 90s Iron Man article series he seemed pretty firm about one set per exercise.
Open User Options Menu

AndyMitch

On the machines Arthur produced I think he firmly believed one set was enough.

The rest time between workouts is difficult to establish because of many factors.

To workout the way Arthur wanted you to reads like it was almost impossible if Arthur wasn?t there, when he was he garnered huge results.

I think Arthur and a few very close to him get get you to where you wanted to be very quick.

Having said all this, supervision and the ability to work hard is key.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

I know that Coe appeared to be " on board " with Arthur's ideas very early on but to what extent he actually followed Arthur's principles about training I can only guess.
I do know from personal experience how difficult it is to keep a bodybuilder committed to new ideas and how quickly their training methods " drift " back to the original methods they originally used.
Even if when switching from a double split routine to a one set 8-12 exercise routine the results they achieve is startling even to the bodybuilder himself and everyone who knows him.
If you don't constantly keep them excited about their progress ,that quickly occurred with switching to Nautilus principles after years of zero progress with workout principles presumably written by Arnold Schwarzenegger as their guide.
After all if you want to be as big and muscular as Arnold doesn't it make sense to train exactly as he did ? And don't forget that most top bodybuilders in Arnold's time believed that diet was 80-90% of bodybuilding progress. I wouldn't doubt that many still believe so still.
Best to use all of the Weider supplements that Arnold does, which would encompass all of them.
Anyhow it's not easy to convince someone to try something new, especially if they were to some extent very successful training with completely opposite methods. Then you have to be a cheerleader, a psychiatrist, a trainer and a coach that does his best to keep the enthusiasm alive.
Don't believe your eyes,believe Arnold and Joe Weider, and don't forget that using Nautilus methods goes completely against the grain of what the majority of successful ( and many more unsuccessful) bodybuilders do. The herd or lemming mentality is very strong.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy